On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:14:39 +0200 Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 August 2007, Jacob wrote:
> > If this is really the way backuppc does incremental backups, I think
> > backuppc should be a bit more incremental with its incremental backups.
> > Instead of comparing against the last full, it should compare against the
> > last full and incremental backups. This would solve this problem and make
> > backuppc more efficient anyway, AFAIK.
>
> That proposal goes completely against the basic principles of incremental
> backups! If you want something like that, you should use multiple levels of
> incremental backups.
Maybe it's time for new principles? ;)
With large files, though, it is an absolute time- and space-waster. I could
easily see myself wanting to backup a 2GB .ISO, but wouldn't want it to take 4x
the actual size of the ISO just because of the way it's backed up. :s
--
Jacob
"For then there will be great distress, unequaled
from the beginning of the world until now—and never
to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut
short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the
elect those days will be shortened."
Are you ready?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
